New Report From Alexander Parkhomov With New Data, Details [Update: English Translation and Video Available]

A new updated report from Alexander Parkhomov has been published which includes information from an earlier report he published in December, plus new information and details from further experimentation he has carried out.

The new report can be found here in the original Russian. Translation of the text from Russian into English has been provided by Bob Higgins and Peter Gluck below:

ParkhomovPaper 20150129 English

I have not had time to thoroughly go through a translation of this report, but I am including here one chart from the report that is new and quite interesting:

parkhomovjan18

The heading for this chart is: “”Temperature change in the heating process. Experiment 18. 01.2015”

Below the chart is this explanation:

“At the beginning of the experiment the reactor was in the air corundum supports. The maximum temperature reached 900 ° C at a power electric heating 450 watts. Then the reactor was surrounded by thermal insulation of corundum powder. at constant power of 160 W temperature increased from 600 to 1000 ° C. Then the reactor for 38 minutes at a working temperature of about 1080 ° C. At an attempt to increase the temperature of the heater burnout occurred.”

It’s noteworthy, I think, that in this experiment, after the heater burned out, that there is no continuation of any reaction, as there seemed to be in the December experiment when the burnout happened at higher temperatures.

According to the tables published in this report, at the time of burnout the COP of this system was 1.73.

UPDATE: Video of the January 29th presentation by Parkhomov at the People’s Free University is posted below:

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    155 W, the original. then he has 70 W and then 60 W. in the new test. The technique for calculating the heat loss value (this would be radiation and convection) has not been explained. Basically, he used, it appears, an indirect measure. The explanation for the change is plausible. I’d much prefer more direct measurements.

  • Sanjeev

    You have it in reverse. Its scientific misconduct to NOT to correct the wrong data. We are grateful to AP for his honesty, he did correct the data and will correct it again if needed.

    May I know the reason for your attempts to spread disinfo here ?

    • AlbertNN

      To “correct” recorded data is not ok. Your are not even allowed to use an eraser in a lab notebook. To correct bad calculations done on recorded data is ok, but requires an explanation.
      The same for dismissing data. It is ok under some circumstances, but not all. And never to be done on an ad-hoc basis.

      And please refrain from ad hominem. I am trying to keep this at a purely scientific level. And from that standpoint I am uncomfortable with the varying correction terms, and especially that he presents calculations that are not based on his measurements.

      • Sanjeev

        Can you please stop your ad hominem first ? Accusing someone of scientific misconduct for correcting powerpoint slides shows that your own integrity is questionable. Note that AP is not present here to defend himself, which makes your actions ethically unsound.

        He did not erase his data of previous experiment, its still there for all to see. Its perfectly ok to issue corrections based on new experiment in a new report. If you have a problem with that , better go and sort it out personally with him.

        In future I will take your all comments with a grain of salt. Its not worth.

        • AlbertNN

          I have not accused P. of scientific misconduct. That was part of a hypothetical discussion with you regarding what is and is not allowed within sound scientific practice. That is also where the discussion of erased data originated.

          And I am not attacking his character, I am criticising him for being sloppy based on what we have seen of his performance. First instance is when he makes slides where the data is inconsistent. The second one is where his calculations are not based on the data measured, contrary to what he is claiming.

          I am just trying to use the same scientific rigour here that I apply in other fields where I am working. Nothing more, and nothing less.

  • Sanjeev

    Its perfectly ok to make corrections in data in experimental science. If you think everything should be perfect from the beginning, you are in some fantasy science land. Refinements and corrections is the way one goes towards truth in science. I’d not be surprised if he makes more corrections or just throws away the current data. I don’t expect any experiment to be reliable, its experiment….. by definition the outcome is not fixed.

    Both of your assumptions are just …. your personal assumption. They are of no scientific value except they show some bias and lack of respect for someone who is actually doing something for LENR.

  • Mike Ivanov

    The goal is not a high temperature, the goal is stable self-sustainable reaction. How it could be achieved, this is a real trick. In classic RnD process, when the experiments are not cursed like LENR – I can imagine tons of various methods, like use gamma-rays to check what is going on inside, and many ways to control reaction, like microwaves for precise heating, sophisticated heat exchangers for quick cooling, etc. Not a case for now… yet.

  • Mats002

    Can’t be bigger than LED – they are on the shelfs of every store, even where we buy food. All lamps will be LED. We will wrap our house in colored and blinking LEDs, our TV is LED, soon our LED wall paper will show living pictures. Poor people can read and be educated thanks to LED (and a solar powered battery). My family understands LED but not at all my enthusiasm for LENR. My enthusiasm for LED was 35 years ago. It takes time…

    • Obvious

      LEDs are a great example. They save huge amounts of power and space compared to incandescent, they have revolutionized electronics, and yet the incandescent and fluorescent light bulb based economies had decades to adjust and make money (and they are still relevant).
      I doubt too many people ran out and shorted the stocks of incandescent light bulb manufacturing companies the day after a public demonstration of a functioning LED, or cleared out their inventories of now-antiquated bulbs.

      • John M

        I hope Rossi “heaters” are not thirty times more
        expensive than comparable furnaces. That
        will slow down acceptance as it did with LED lights.

        I wonder if it will be easier or more difficult to establish
        subsidies as are common for efficient lighting, solar installations and
        electric vehicles.

  • Nicholas Cafarelli

    The apparatus builder needs to determine a parts list, order parts, await their delivery, correct any part errors, assemble/manipulate parts, test assemblies, assess measuring systems, possibly alter strategies, and then might be ready to make test runs. These things need more than a snap of the fingers to manifest.

  • Obvious

    A fine dusting of micro nickel powder could be a long term health hazard. I would consider that to be the primary danger. It is a cumulative exposure risk, and hard to clean up properly. Might have to spray down a contaminated area with epoxy paint and discard to reduce exposure risks. The garbage collector might end up being poisoned, rather than lab personnel, if the disposal is not done correctly.
    If the nickel clumps together as a porous sinter within the tube, as demonstrated in some tests, it might not be too bad.
    Over-filling with LAH, causing over pressure, is the alternate danger.
    A good containment box would prevent most of these problems. The heater coils should hold most of the cylinder together, even in case of over pressure failure.

  • Sanjeev

    These are just powerpoint slides. Not a detailed paper comparing past and current experiment. He just corrected whatever he thought needs corrections and presented the corrected results. I can’t see how this is a problem.
    The experiment is crude and still going on , so there will be many corrections and revisions.

  • Sanjeev

    Yes, I noticed that too. The graph shows about 150-170 W.
    If you reverse calculate from the energy its 323000/(38*60)=142W, which is closer to the value in the table.

    However, I guess, the main goal of his crude experiments is to demonstrate that there is excess heat and very significant excess. Its not to measure everything down to 6 decimal places. This will follow if he uses expensive instruments and calorimeters in a million $ lab. Of course, I see no one has come forward with a funding proposal yet.

  • Nigel Appleton

    “Alumina can leak hydrogen”? At what rate and at what temperature? Can you cite a source for this?
    Solid materials seem to be permeable to hydrogen at rates of micromoles to nanomoles or even less per second per metre at the sorts of temperatures and pressures used in this application

  • Sanjeev

    Yes, I kept is pessimistic intentionally, kind of worst case scenario. Still it is encouraging.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I am impressed with how low tech Parkhomov’s equipment was.

    Remarkable people doing remarkable things with odds and ends. Simply brilliant!

    If that does not convince you that this will become a global garage industry if the big boys fail to step up, then nothing will.

    • clovis ray

      O.P. I agree, and all I can say is what a shame, this great mind, has hardly any help from his country, I prefer, to rely on MF/MP, for a creatable,,replication with videos and data runs, that can be scrutinized and checked, thanks MF/MP you guys for doing it the right way,

  • Ged

    That has nothing to do with claiming he didn’t test a null hypothesis (aka, didn’t do controls). I will not let you off the hook on that one, as it is incredibly insulting.

    Science is a progressive art, and thus there is room for improvement in all experiments. There is plenty of room for improvement here. Nothing done is ever perfect the first time or answers all the questions. But claiming that he has failed the scientific method by not having a perfect experiment first attempt is not appropriate to say, as he Did test a null hypothesis, and he Did have controls. Sure, they can be improved, but they were still there. And lithium is not magical in any way.

    I also do not agree with your analysis based on the data, but either way, improvements can and will be made following the scientific method, and -that- is science in motion and the job of a scientist.

  • Obvious

    I would suggest a ceramic tube design with solid performance to at least 1200 C be the first goal. No meltdowns when empty. Then no meltdowns when iron added (hot spot). Then no damage from using LAH. Then go for the excess heat.
    Of course I understand the desire to get the excess power coming, to make sure the whole exercise isn’t a waste of time. But avoiding catastrophic failure with dangerous ingredients inside is a critical priority. Nobel prizes aren’t awarded posthumously.

  • Anon2012_2014

    1. Parkhomov was a Rossi 3rd party replication.
    2. The data released about Parkhomov and his experiment supports the hypothesis that he is a genuine scientist who is doing his best to make some reasonable (to him) assumptions and thereby measure the Rossi effect.
    3. The weaknesses of Parkhomov are the same as the weaknesses of Rossi: possible good faith errors in his experiment and results; and possible slight of hand.
    4. But the very fact that we have now 1 third party replication at power levels similar to Rossi, makes the likelihood higher that BOTH Rossi and Parkhomov have running LENR reactors.
    5. Each additional 3rd party replication increases the probability of item #4. Once you have 10 at reputable University labs around the world, the probability goes to 100% certain of LENR.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Parkhomov isn’t a Rossi replication, except speculatively. It is a loose confirmation of an effect. As the matter stands, this isn’t going to “university labs around the world,” because the information is far too scanty. Both the Lugano test and the Parkhomov tests suffer from inadequate calibration. I’m seeing a lot of very enthusiastic people failing to actually look closely at the Parkhomov data.

      I want the Parkhomov effect to be real. But I also want the truth. I don’t know the truth, so I continue searching. Along the way, I report what I see. Some of what I see may be misinterpreted by me, or error in some way. However, I can say this: I have become fairly familiar with the first Parkhomov report, and about as familiar as I can become in about two days with the second report. There is a reason why I was the first person AFAIK to report the major errors in the English translation. It’s because I’m familiar with the data. I’ve spent a lot of time studying it.